The Colour of Magic

Like LifeChild, I read the series in order and so didn't find CoM and LF weak at the time I read them. Compared to his current writing they're certainly lacking but they were good as a way to test the waters of the Ankh

I disliked CofM intensely when I first read it. And a recent re-reading made me think it was slightly better than I had first thought, but not much. If this had been my introduction to Pratchett, I am afraid I'd not have read further. Luckily, my first book was Equal Rites--and then the rest of the witch books.

Looking at it now, I can see things that Terry picked up and expanded on in better ways later. But I can think of several other series of humorous parodies of sci-fi/fantasy that I think are funnier and to some extent better written.

Still, it's interesting to see where Terry started from. But I assume he had a two book contract, because of the ending (or non-ending) of Cof M which still irritates me as a cop-out conclusion.

I am now giving all readers and order here: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Why do you have to love it? Because with out this one book there would be no Discworld books! How can you not love the one book that started it all off! So as I said: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Or me and my little rat friends will find you and run up your pant legs…. Then you figure out the rest!

A legal Feegle? How could there be such a thing?Today I feel like I am soaring like a tortoise!

LifeChild wrote:I like it, it got me into the series and gave me a few laughs. I'm one of those people who can't read a series out of sync though, I knew that was the first one so I had to start there and go in order, and i'm glad i've read them all in order so I can see the characters progress but at the same time I think if I were recommending TP to someone else I don't think i'd have them start with the first few, the style definitely changes and gets better later on.

I undoubtedly agree

And in Heather's case, there were sometimes Third Thoughts and Fourth Thoughts, although these were quite difficult to manage and sometimes led her to walk into doors

Exp. Date, the rat wrote:I am now giving all readers and order here: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Why do you have to love it? Because with out this one book there would be no Discworld books! How can you not love the one book that started it all off! So as I said: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Or me and my little rat friends will find you and run up your pant legs…. Then you figure out the rest!

Sorry ratboy (or ratgirl). Just because something is first in a series or introduces a concept doesn't mean it has to be "loved." The late Robert Parker's classic "Spenser" series started off rather mundanely with the forgettable "Godwulf(sp.) Manuscript," and it took him close to four sequels before he started producing classics (unlike PTerry, however, the quality of his books declined rapidly over time). Not sure whether "The Hobbit" was written before the LOTR trilogy, but (to me at least) it's not a particularly great book and certainly contains nothing of the depth and sweep of the trilogy. PG Wodehouse's first Jeeves books were quite awful compared to the classics he started creating in the mid-20s. Just because you acknowledge that a certain book started a series of concept doesn't mean it's lovable. COM and TLF aren't loveable at all.

Jeff - in Tolkien academia (yes seriously! ) The Hobbit is not counted as part of the Prof's official body of high literary work. He conceived and wrote it as a bedtime story for his kids and had to pay a whopping great tax bill is the bottom line

It was written before any of us on this forum were born (probably - anyone born in 1937 or earlier?) and when kids books really were for little kids. As such it's actually quite PC in some ways and certainly more entertaining and better written than the Narnia stories by his friend and rival C.S. Lewis (they're terribly patronising books looking back!). For his later books based in Arda TH just can't be made to 'fit', mainly on the elven side and so it's only the Gollum/Ring incident that links it to the rest. Strictly speaking even the LotR trilogy isn't regarded as spectacularly canon - he had another tax bill...

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

Jan Said: Strictly speaking even the LotR trilogy isn't regarded as spectacularly canon - he had another tax bill...

Oooh Jan . . I'm sure you missed the 'winky smiley' off your post next to the laughing one!

Without wishing to hijack the thread, If you get a chance to read Tolkiens letters (edited by Humphrey Carpenter) you can see how much pressure he was under through the 40's to finish the book by the publishers who were keen for a Hobbit sequel, but it was a pure labour of love that he couldn't rush (often driving Stanley Unwin to distraction!).

Anyway, back to the thread . . . TCOM - Love it, you've got to. It's the first - not the best - but still the first.

I still advocate chronologically is the best way to read DW because you get to experience Terrys style change and back at the very start, the discworld felt young and unexplored (as it was to us).

I have greatly enjoyed all my vacations in Discworld and wouldnt want to skip any of them.

Exp. Date, the rat wrote:I am now giving all readers and order here: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Why do you have to love it? Because with out this one book there would be no Discworld books! How can you not love the one book that started it all off! So as I said: YOU HAVE TO LOVE COLOR OF MAGIC! Or me and my little rat friends will find you and run up your pant legs…. Then you figure out the rest!

Sorry ratboy (or ratgirl). Just because something is first in a series or introduces a concept doesn't mean it has to be "loved." The late Robert Parker's classic "Spenser" series started off rather mundanely with the forgettable "Godwulf(sp.) Manuscript," and it took him close to four sequels before he started producing classics (unlike PTerry, however, the quality of his books declined rapidly over time). Not sure whether "The Hobbit" was written before the LOTR trilogy, but (to me at least) it's not a particularly great book and certainly contains nothing of the depth and sweep of the trilogy. PG Wodehouse's first Jeeves books were quite awful compared to the classics he started creating in the mid-20s. Just because you acknowledge that a certain book started a series of concept doesn't mean it's lovable. COM and TLF aren't loveable at all.

J-I-B

That is a matter of opinion I loved them both and still do but I would not try to persuade anyone or not to change their view. And the 1st inkling of the Discworld books style were in the two sf novels he done before COM.

He willnae tak' a drink! I think he's deid! , on the other hand though A Midgie in yir hand is worth twa up yir kilt.

Tony, Tony, Tony - the officers of the Lore on Tolkien forums make the canon nazis on other fantasy fandoms look like the Vienna Boy's choir

Yes - of course Bilbo and Gollum are part of LotR canon, but I was reading this up on the some of the really anal lore sites earlier and apparently after TH began to make money and Tolkien realised he was in danger of getting another even bigger tax bill he was intending to publish the Trilogy and the Silmarillion as 2 volumes but he had a shitload of revisions to do and realised that TH wouldn't stand up at all in some places to fit the Sil and therefore the later storyline and so the early re-print editions of TH both contained as much revision as he could get away with without completely destroying the storyline to bring it more in line with the adult books without spoiling the kiddies take.

Some 'major' things the Tolkien Officers of the Lore will not accept in TH -1. Elrond - he's referred to as an 'elf-friend' up front, but I think they slipped in somewhere (in a muttery aside from Gandalf possibly) that he was half-elven. Elrond according to the Sil is certainly of very mixed blood, including human, but he's mostly elven (by nearly 60%) and he could, had he wanted to, have claimed High Kingship of the Elves through both his parents bloodline. He was a very posh elven prince. Elf friends have no elven blood, but can claim good buddy status, so most of the Fellowship (and Bilbo) were elf-friends (except Goldilocks).
Finally Elrond wielded the most powerful of the 3 Elven Rings and by right of blood and ability he was the chief battle commander of the elves. The ring would not be in the care of an elf friend because they wouldn't have the magical wattage for a start.

2. some of the timelines were screwed - for Thorin's father being found imprisoned, I think that had to be moved from Moria to Dol Guldur (Sauron's HQ in Mirkwood which will take up the slack for there to be 2 Hobbit movies starting in 2012).

3. Rivendell elves. Totally, totally and absolutely wrong. No falla-lal-lallys I'm afraid! They might have done for Mirkwood or Lothlorien elves in less 'dark' times but Imladris was mainly a community for the remaining Noldor who were high caste warrior exiles (including Galadriel who lived in Rivendell too at various times as her daughter was Elrond's wife). Other sorts of elves were there too but in the timeframe for both books, they were about to be in a state of mobilising for getting elves out of Middle Earth altogether, which is why they did not actually fight with the other races during the War of the Ring (except for Goldilocks) because there weren't that many elves left there by then.

4. Trolls - not the same in any way to the Trolls in LotR. They had trouser pockets and talking purses for heaven's sake! Trolls in the LotR and certainly in the Sil are barely sentient, certainly don't talk or wear clothes as such and are mainly used almost as beast of burdens and as battering rams more or less (the films did get them right mostly). The Hobbit ones by comparison are geniuses and on the scrawny side and would have had people from Rivendell coming out with heavy magic artillery High Elves to see 'em off.

5. Military mobilisation - as holders of the 3 elven rings at the time the dwarves and Bilbo were in Rivendell, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel were getting ready to 'take out' the Necromancer of Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood which is why they stayed there for several days to revictual and for Elrond to take a butchers at the map (he could do what Gandalf couldn't and told them about the secret door). Once they'd got through the mountains and enter Mirkwood, Gandalf leaves them because he's off to meet up with Elrond and Galadriel's husband to assault the Necromancer who they know is Sauron and succeed in making him 'flee' his fortress in Mirkwood for Mordor. This isn't part of TH story as such but it also puts the kybosh on the fluffy elves thing. Rivendell would have been full of warriors at that stage and not camp chorus elves. Sorry

So far as Tolkien scholars are concerned TH has just enough canon to fit LotR, but it is for kids and it cannot be used for most serious lore purposes as kosher canon because it's essentially a fairy story for hobbits with some dwarves in there too.

I'm not a purist and think Tolkien lore geeks are mostly boring and usually very sad sods, so that list is not exhaustive and relatively low key - I have seen people ready to disembowel in some threads over the elf-friend designation for Elrond and when you get onto more controversial areas like orcs, origins thereof and especially whether or not balrogs can fly and you would realise that forum trolls on Tolkien sites fight with thermo-nuclear weapons...

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw